Newsvine Q&A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

The following is a summary of the Questions and Answers, pulled from the Newsvine comment thread below:

Chuck:

Let's get back to state-by-states.

The most recent polls in both ND and SD show Obama at least competitive in both.

Worth it for him to compete in either state?

-jfxgillis

Obama has the luxury of cash to compete so why not... ND is a same-day voter regis. state so he could get a bunch of new voters to show up... Bottom line, if Obama's worried about losing Michigan or Penn., he needs to find alternative paths to gather up Electoral Votes...

Also, ND has the Fargo market, which is shared with Minnesota... so it's a two-fer for now.

Chuck,
Who do you think benefits or is hurt more from the new spotlight being shown on Afghanistan? Will Obama's decision to send more troops there further alienate him from the far left?

-niafabo

Short term, I think Obama's won the Afghanistan back-n-forth because McCain appeared to follow Obama's lead. Ultimately, the more this is a national security election, though, the more it slightly benefits McCain. So on this particular issue, it's a mixed bag.

Chuck,

What factors do you believe are contributing to the fact that Obama seems to be performing extremely well in states surrounding Illinois like Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Indiana while McCain seems to be under performing in states surrounding Arizona like Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada?

-mjs6288

I think it's a simple biography thing. Obama's more well known to voters in states that touch Illinois or share the Chicago or St. Louis media markets. And the deeper the knowledge about Obama in a state, the better he holds up.

As for McCain, he stopped being a senator from Arizona a long time ago; he's the senator from America. He's a national figure; this is not to stay he still doesn't represent Arizona's interests in the Senate, he does; but he's more national and doesn't go out of his way to champion western issues in the same way he used to.

Hi Chuck,

I'm just wondering when candidates usually have the debates in the general?

-Rhonda-303565

Well, the Commission on Presidential Debates are the folks that have been organizing the debates for the last 20 years. They have set four debates in a four week period, beginning Sept. 26 -- three presidentials and one VP matchup. Both candidates are likely to participate; one of the debates will be in MS, one in TN, one in NY and the VP matchup in St. Louis

Has Colin Powell been asked if he would be interested? Would he not eliminate the racial component of this race,would he not please the far left, and as vice president candidate he would net be a Target for the radial. John please consider him .

-J>H>D

Powell's age may be a factor working against him for the VP slot.

It looks to me now, that Obama has been right all along. We strayed from Afghanistan and they have become stronger. The truths omitted by this President and staff are the reason we have more than 4000 dead in Irac, they were not responsible for 9/11. How can ths administration get away with what I consider to be war crimes?

Obama 08/ over 55 white female, he has some of us!

-Debi1208

Clearly, Obama has shifted the topic of conversation from Iraq to Afghanistan and with the news of more U.S. soldiers dying at a faster rate in Afghanistan than Iraq, the media is likely to continue to cover the Afghanistan debate at a heightened level.

Love you, Eugene Robinson, Rachael Maddow. Is there any chance any of you will be asking the questions when we have a debate? Is there going to be a way that we will be able to request a question be asked? Thanks Chuck

-Debi1208

The planned debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates; they have a web site (Google them) and I'm guessing they have a place where you can suggest questions and questioners

Chuck,

Do you see Iran becoming a big issue that both candidates will talk much more about before November rolls around? And do you think people will care about Iran, and even to the same extent Afghanistan, with the economy staying where it is at least till November?

- Matt, 20, San Diego

-hans3n9

I think Iran only becomes a major issue in the campaign if the country forces a confrontation either with the U.S. or Israel before November.

I'd like to know why there is such an obvious anti-Obama slant with the news. The Wright thing was ran into the ground. So was the Clark thing. Yet McCain gets a relatively free pass on almost everything. I know you guys are his base, but how about some fairness?

-Tim Weaver

Obama's the new guy... the new guys on the block get more coverage, both positive and negative; it happened with Reagan, Dukakis, Clinton and Dubya...

Sometimes it benefits the candidate, sometimes it doesn't.

Chuck, my question is: Why is it that when Obama changes his perspective on an issue it is considered flip flopping on every MSM station, but when McCain changes his perspective on issues, he is simply modifying his position. Why is there a double standard? And why is there little to no coverage from MSNBC when McCain does "change his perspective" on issues?

-Monica-379244

I don't think there's been a double-standard on this... McCain was hit hard on the immigration switch... when it happened at the time... I think it depends on what the issue was... And how the candidate attempts to portray the shift... Obama's problem in this Iraq decision was to act as if he hadn't changed a thing when he absolutely changed the tone and emphasis of his position on withdrawal. One of my favorite sayings is "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining." If Obama had simply said, look, I'm modifying my emphasis to give myself a little wiggle room because it appears the facts on the ground might be different. He wouldn't have gotten hit as hard by the press for switching positions. I agree, on close examination, he hasn't changed his position, he's changed his tone and emphasis of his goal. It's a change; acknowledge it and move on.

Hi Chuck!

Just wondering about how much you guys in DC know that doesn't make it on the air. What is the criteria for reporting a story vs. holding? I've heard quite a few interesting things from my friends that live in the area, and I keep waiting to hear something from the MSM, but to no avail. What is off limits?

By the way, I saw you in New Orleans a couple of years ago at the Convention Center talking about the midterm elections that had just happened. You were great. Remember, "it's real-tor, not real-a-tor." Just kidding, that wasn't me.

Taylor

-Peyton Taylor

I think we report everything we can report... Sometimes we know things that we can't report for one reason or another... maybe we don't trust our source; maybe it's a bit salacious and seems gratuitous to report it; maybe it's something we're holding back on because there's a specific timetable for when something's going to be reported... there are a number of variables. There are also plenty of things we don't report because it doesn't seem to rise to the level of putting it on the tube. So we might report it online (via First Read of course) or we may not report it at all because it really is a minor development that won't make sense without a ton of extra context.

Chuck, do you think the most important point of consideration about Senator McCain is who will be his running mate. As it has had many articles written on the subject everyone realizes the job as POTUS turns young mens hair grey and the stress of the job is hard on the body, considering these facts should one not take into consideration the McCain will probably croak form a heart attack before the end of his term and the VP will be the president.

-Joseph Caligiuri

well, I think both nominees will see their running mates scrutinized as potential presidents in a way we haven't seen in previous elections.

Chuck, I agree with the previous two comments. I have almost quit listening to David Gregory because he seems to almost make excuses for McCain. I don't object to critical observations of Obama as long as the same rules apply to McCain but there seems to be an obvious tilt to coverage by MSNBC as well as other venues. So far Rachel Maddow (on Countdown)has been the only one questioning why the playing field isn't level.

-QueenLinda

Again, I think Obama's the new guy so he attracts more scrutiny for all of his positions; toss in the fact that he's the frontrunner and the spotlight gets brighter and the lights get hotter. McCain has had his day under the bright lights and he'll have it again.

Chuck,

The current polls...How meaningful are they? Are we in that "blah" place where people aren't really paying attention until after the conventions? And do you have any polls which you believe are the most reliable?

Thank you, sir.

-Ian Walter

I'm very nervous about these summer polls for a couple of reasons

1)the folks paying attention and seen as more likely voters are generally older and that may be skewing results a tad.

2)In previous years, the summer has proven to be a time when Democrats have over-performed; is that happening this time? (then again, if this issue is canceled out by the 1st issue, maybe it's ok). 3) The campaign just isn't engaged... Here's when I want to see polling next that I'll find believable.. the first week AFTER the conventions... the first week after the first debate.

Chuck, I was wondering your opinion on the whole narrative of this presidential race. The McCain camp is trying to make this all about Obama. Do you think it is fair that the media seems to be going along with this narrative. It seems to me that anything Obama does gets alot more scrutiny than McCain. McCain almost seems to be getting a free ride on some of his mistakes because the press is so preoccupied with Obama. In your opinon is this how it should be, or should the media hold McCain to the fire a little bit more. Thanks for doing such a great job. Keep up the good work.

-tatro

Well, I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your question; that said, we're asking a specific question of voters to get a sense of this very issue: we're asking, when thinking about the presidential race, do you spend more time thinking about a President Obama or more time thinking about a President McCain?

I think this will tell us if VOTERS believe it's a referendum on one or the other. Frankly, I do believe that this will be a referendum on Obama in this sense. The country's decided it wants change and it wants a new direction but Obama isn't walking away with it. Why? I think it's because a big chunk of voters (perhaps 15-20% of the electorate) is still not sure if Obama's ready for the job. They want to know more about him and about how he'd govern. It's human nature.

Chuck,

I've heard your thoughts on Obama's VP pick; how he needs someone with foreign policy credentials to bolster his "inexperience" on the world stage. On the other hand, I have also heard you say that either of the candidates will need to talk to the average American's issues, and connect with them, in order to win in the general.

I have a slightly different opinion about the VP pick neeeding foreign policy gravitas. I believe that Obama's shift to the middle for the general election requires that he pick a VP who can talk to middle American issues: unemployment, health care, gas prices, the shrinking middle-class, working-poor, etc. I don't see the war in Iraq or Afghanistan taking priority in the American mind. I don't think that banging the war drum against Iran will prevail.

I liked John Edwards during the primaries, although I supported and voted for Barack Obama. I believe the strongest ticket would be Obama-Edwards. He has the Populist views that speak to American economic issues. He is youthful-looking. He and Obama made a great-looking pair during his endorsement speech.

What I am missing that Sam Nunn, Tom Daschle or Joe Biden would be better candidates? Or, is there a candidate in the Edwards vein that would be a better pick?

-Bobcat34

I think your point on Edwards is interesting. In fact, I think a similar argument can be made on the GOP side regarding Huckabee. Both Edwards and Huckabee have a populist streak that might play well in the fall. I think if Edwards had proven to be a better vote-getter in 2004 as Kerry's running mate (like putting NC more in play), then he'd be higher on the Obama list. We'll see, I think Edwards is more in play than folks realize but my gut says it won't happen.

Hi Chuck, As you probally noticed from before I'm heavily for Obama to pick either Senator Biden or Senator Bayh. My question is when do you think he will announce his Pick.. a) After his trip and before the Olympics so that the Hillraisers will hopefully simmer down during the Olympics and maybe get a huge bump in the polls for August b) The day after or the day of the Closing ceremony of the Olympics. Heavy volume of voters tuning into the TV. c) During the convention ..maybe on the day of the roll call to get the media off the how will they do the roll call in respects of HC, Love your input..Thanks

-Sudesh Kudchadkar

My guess is that Obama names his running mate at the very end of July... maybe Aug. 1... I think they want a pre-Olympics media bounce

It seems to me that the GOP's current plan is to paint both Obamas as the 'other.' You know, the rumours, the smears, the 'terrorist fist jab,' "Obama's baby mama," the emphasis on TUCC, etc. How effective do you think they have been/will be at this, and what effect do you see it having on the undecided part of the electorate?

Thanks again for keeping up the series. I don't think you'll have so many comments this time around, given the shorter notice.

-SteveHouse

Well, this isn't a new strategy for a candidate to use against an upstart challenger. Gerald Ford tried to make Jimmy Carter seem weak and untested. Carter attempted to do the same with Reagan; ditto with George H.W. Bush with Dukakis and Clinton.

This is sometimes the only path a candidate has when his challenger appears to be headed for a potential victory unless something stops him.

If Obama loses Florida and Ohio, but wins Iowa, Pennsylvania, & Michigan [is Michigan the least likely of the 3?], do you think that New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Colorado are the 3 swing states mostly likely to put him above 269? What do you see as the likelihood that he will win any or all of these 3 states? Are there any other swing states (such as Virginia, Indiana, Montana, Nevada, Missouri, Alaska, or North Dakota) that you see him as likely to win as these 3 states?

-Razin

In my latest assumptions, I think McCain has to win three of the following four: FL, OH, PA and MI to win. Obama's got legit paths to 270 if he just wins two of those four. If I were Obama, I'd be most concerned about MI. There's a confluence of problems in the state for Obama, from a messy racial polarization issue around Detroit to Obama's discomfort campaigning for Arab votes (a big bloc in Michigan) to the fact that he didn't spend any time in the state during the primary season.

If Obama loses both FL and OH and wins the rest of the Kerry states, he needs 18 electoral votes; CO and VA would put him over. VA and IA would put him over. CO, NM and NV would put him over. CO, NM and IA would do it... Ditto with CO, NV and IA... As you can see from my numbers, I think it means that CO and VA are crucial to any Obama victory that doesn't include both OH and FL. And if Obama lost OH, FL and MI, then he needs to find 35 additional EVs when you include all the Kerry states. The additional 35 would have to come from: VA, CO (21) + IA (7); plus BOTH NM and NV (38) total... Suddenly, Obama's path to 270 looks a lot more suspect if McCain wins three of those four I initially identified.

Why is Sen. McCain not taken to task more often on his gross mishandling of basic facts? Dating back to the start of the Iraq campaign, McCain claimed there was no history of conflict of Shia and Sunni in the region to the more recent reference to the now defunct Czechoslovakia not once but twice. While it may or may not have anything to do with age, he clearly does not have a solid command of the facts.

Also, how does the republican party get away with any of their arguments when their interests run so counter to mainstream America? They present false or misrepresented data, omit critical facts and espouse opinion as misguided opinion as fact. Is there any basis to the suspicion that they managed to slip a majority of the country some kind of everlasting mickey?

-perplexed in the US

I think you'll see the Obama campaign pushing back a lot more on some of these things you are pointing out re: McCain. I've said this before and I'll repeat here: we can only cover the campaign in front of us... sometimes, an opponent needs to learn how to take advantage of weaknesses they perceive. If they don't, we might find ourselves working on other stories... I'm not saying we don't think on our own, we do; but it's a big world out there... we may miss stuff.

sorry, chuck, i'm a big fan but i'm not buying "obama's the new guy" as the reason the media is giving mccain such a pass on factual errors. there are sites like carpetbaggerreport.com that have created LISTS of them. it feels like the media -- like many americans -- have bought the experienced/maverick narrative and do not question basics. as if it is not possible that mccain does not know the difference between shiites and sunnis even though he has made the mistake repeatedly.

Both candidates get criticized for things that surprise me and get passes for things that surprise. Over the course of a campaign, I believe these things eventually even out. We'll see how the score looks after the conventions. Then let's revisit this debate.

Hey chuck, I was just wondering about all the talk of Obama Patriotism, you know him not wearing a flag pin well I have notice that John Mccain have never once been seen wearing a flag pin since this presidential election started. Shouldn't he be question about his Patiotism. Is he not doing the same thing Obama said he would do by showing his love for country by his actions?

-sheed
Sheed, I think this is actually part of a larger issue. The media doesn't know how to frame these kinds of questions. Remember back in the Iowa caucus when reporters of all stripes were asking, "Is Obama black enough?" By the time we got to Pennsylvania, this had somehow morphed to, "Is Obama too black?" The problem is that most reporters don't know how in the heck to approach the question of race. That's where the patriotism thing comes in. This entire campaign, it seems to me, is hinging on Obama. As Pat Buchanan said, this election is going to be a referendum on Obama, so all the questions will be about, and driven by, Obama, rather than McCain.

-raven2017

What Raven said... this campaign is about whether voters are comfortable with Obama representing what America stands for and what it is.

I would like to ask why my comments never/rarely get posted on First Read? What is your system there? How quickly does one need to comment after the story gets posted?
Secondly, I also see a slant toward giving McCain a free pass on many of his gaffes and mistakes, while Obama is so harshly scrutinized it is uncomfortable. Sometimes I'm waiting for the "cavity search". Why do so many other people see it that way too?
Lastly, in your personal opinion, using broad terms, do you think there is anything the Obama camp could do to reverse some of the incorrect perceptions about him? Or, do you think that some people will always be either misinformed or will cling to stereotypes because of an underlying fear of change?
Thanks Chuck Todd!

-jonymc

We post the first 50 comments for every post on First Read; but have to shut it down after 50 because of time. I know that means some comments don't make the cut, but it's simply and time issue.

As for your 2nd and 3rd questions: I think the scrutiny will even out over time; I think this stuff ebbs and flows and when things are going good, the coverage seems great and when things are not going well for your candidate, the coverages seems awful... I also believe Obama's getting the "new guy" treatment so everything gets over-covered.

On the Obama biography issue, I think it'll simply take time for most folks and for a few, they'll always believe the rumors; every president has a fringe element that believe the worst about them. It happened with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter..

well, just Google "Ma, Ma, where's my pa" and you'll realize it's happened to every president in every century.

Chuck! How is Bush and McCain going to spin the talks with Iran? When Obama always said, that's what we needed to do. What impact will this have on the race? I'll sure like to hear your answer on Good Morning Joe show tomorrow.

-ladybmore

I think ultimately, Iran will only become a major campaign issue if a confrontation is forced with either the U.S. or Israel before November.

I would like to know why do the Joe show and Hardball has Pat Bucannin on, who knows so much about our goverment is disgusting at times. Will you ask Pat run for president again with Lou Dobbs from CCN as vice president.

-ladybmore

I know many folks have hardened opinions about Pat. Let me just tell you that Pat is one of the most interesting political historians alive. His analytical instincts are very spot on. He knows how our electorate moves. You may totally agree or disagree with some of his policy prescriptions but be sure to pay close attention to his campaign analysis of where the wind is going to blow; he's not afraid to let viewers know when someone he agrees with is political toast.

Some thoughts on the New Yorker magazine front cover cartoon of the Obamas

" One picture is worth a thousand words "
We react to this picture, based upon one's own bias or fears.
The author of this pictorial mistruth refers to it as a satire.
The New Yorker's defense is it is nonsence to a reasonable person. It is not a reasonable satirical lampoon. We tell a joke: we smile or snicker.
Someone tells a lie, long enough, loud enough and often enough the liar creates a fear based on the liar's perception; thus the creation of propaganda of hatred and disdain.
In this case the satire establishes the liar's bias.

-George D. Hitt

Well, I'm not going to tell the New Yorker how to publish its magazine; All I can say is that I thought we in the media made too much out of this.

Many of the questions I have read here ask why McCain seems to getting free rides so much of the time. I would like to know why this is too. Obviously Senator Obama is much more interesting than McCain - for so many reasons, especially since he is less well known to Americans. That not withstanding, however, Americans should be well informed about both candidates in order to make a well informed decision in November. We can't take for granted that we really know John McCain either.
Many Americans haven't paid that much attention to him during his career, he seems to have changed somewhat over the last few years, and the youths are fairly new to politics. This election is particularly important, which is why more people are taking an active interest in it. AND I'd surely like to see McCain take the punches Obama has. BY THE WAY, Chuck, would you tell us who, in your gut, you think will be our next president?
Thank you for the excellent work you do, I always look forward to what you can tell us - and miss Tim Russert.

-Liketoknow

Again, I believe that when this campaign becomes THE front and center story of the final 60 days of the campaign season, you'll get your fill of both sides, big time... as for my gut... all of the historical and current data point to this being Obama's election to lose.

Many of the questions I have read here ask why McCain is getting a free ride so much of the time. I would like to know why too. Senator Obama is more interesting - for many reasons, especially since he is less well known to the country than McCain. That not withstanding however, Americans need to be well informed about both candidates in order to make a responsible decision in November. I don't think that we should take for granted that Americans know John McCain that well either. Many people haven't followed politics as closely as they are now because this is such an important time for our country and this is an important election. As well, many youths are fairly new to following politics. AND, I'd truely like to see him take the punches Senator Obama has!
BY THE WAY, Chuck, I wonder if you would tell us: In you gut, who do you think will be our next president?
Thank you for all your hard work. I always look forward to what you can tell us, and sure wish we could have Tim Russert's views, too.

-Liketoknow

I think by the fall, folks will believe they are getting a very good picture of this campaign and that both campaigns are being treated equally... If not, then we're not doing our job... but don't judge us during the ebbs and flows... wait for the complete picture... then it's open season on me!

As for your second question; I look at the campaign this way: there are three likely results: an Obama landslide, a narrow Obama win or a narrow McCain win... the landscape points to Obama; but he's very new to the scene and it's possible the country decides he's too big of a risk at a time when there seems to be so many problems facing the country... No matter what, though, I think the race is going to stay close until the end when it either breaks Obama's way big or doesn't.

Im watching morining Joe as usual and Joe Does not beleive only 5% of blacks trust Mccain. Really. He voted against the MLK holiday. That was a no brainer and regardless of what Joe thinks of him being a hero, that is not the person who would represent "all Americans." My grandfather 93 Dad 65 and myself all served with honor and I dont beleive just Because you got captured and got tortured should qualify you to be President. If that was the case he would have beat out the cheerleader. My father has two purple hearts and still did not want to leave Vietnam. He is my hero but you dont see me saying he should be the next president. He represents that segement of our population that wont let go of the past. We are getting are buts kicked internationally in trade and credablility and he is not the face we need to show the world we want to go a different direction. He is more of the same. And at the end of the day blacks will never trust him. Joe he voted against a slain civil rights leader holiday. Why? And we should trust him why? Regardless what people like Mccain and Joe think Blacks are informed and watching and will be more involved than ever before in history. Not because Obama is black. He is not. He is white and black. But because he speaks of change for all Americans. That is change we can beleive in. Obama 08

-James Heart of Texas

Careful of that NYT poll about unfavorable ratings regarding McCain among blacks... they offer a "neutral/don't know" option and there was a good chunk of folks who picked that and if pushed may have picked favorable...

I was amazed that Senator Obama thinks General Marshall was the force behind the Marshall Plan. What else doesn't he know? He certainly hasn't read a biography on Truman probably even in wikipedia.
Rev. Charles Bunnell

-Charles Bunnell

Well, I'm not someone who recommends anyone use Wikipedia to learn the specifics on anything.

If you had to pick the top three in the Obama VP sweepstakes as of this date, who would your three be? I honestly feel Biden should be the choice. He has a great personal story, he's Irish-Catholic, and definitely connects to the blue-collar voter, especially in PA. I think my # 2 would be Evan Bayh and # 3 would be Jack Reed.

BTW, the Benson finale ended as a cliffhanger, with Benson and the current Gov. watching the returns. A winner was never actually shown.

-Rob H-379758

I can't quibble with your top three... Here's what I think folks need to keep in mind about Obama is that I think he wants 1) someone who he's comfortable with. 2) someone who won't attempt to overshadow him. 3) someone who might not have their own presidential ambition...

Another exemple how the media are biased against Obama with the story from NYTIMES about the poll.

Story from nytimes: " Poll Finds Obama's Run Isn't Closing Divide on Race "

Response from Obama campaign :

The Obama campaign is taking issue with The New York Times this morning over the paper's front-page piece today on the Times poll released last night, critiquing the story for omitting a great deal of the paper's own poll polling data that suggests a different conclusion than the story reached.

The Obama campaign sent over a detailed critique of the story, which concludes from the poll that Obama isn't closing the divide on race. The story's lead reporter was the paper's top political writer, Adam Nagourney.

"The NYT story about their poll ignores multiple and significant pieces of data that actually indicate a trend much different from that which the story suggests," the critique reads. It goes on to list "some straightforward points from their data that are omitted from the story."...

a)More white voters say Obama cares about people like them, than say the same thing about McCain by 31 to 23 b) On the essential issue in this campaign - bringing about change in Washington - Among white voters, Obama is seen as the change agent by 52% to 30%

c) Obama's 31% favorable rating among white voters is virtually identical to McCain's, which is at 34%. d) By a 2 to 1 margin over McCain, white voters are more likely to say that Obama would improve America's image in the world e) "Racial dissension" around Mrs. Obama's 24% favorable rating among whites is an extremely odd description given that Mrs. McCain's favorable rating among white voters is 20%. f) Enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy is roughly 2.5 times higher among white voters than is enthusiasm for McCain's. g) Obama is winning by 6 points against McCain and the gap among white voters is only -9 --- a margin smaller than independent expert on voting patterns, Ruy Texiera, said would give Obama a " solid win." h) though there is a six-point margin of error among black voters the NYT describes the 7-point change in black voters' views that whites had a better chance of getting ahead as slightly higher than 8 years ago. Given that the Times reports horserace questions as statistically even when the margin falls within the margin, it seems that this shift from seven years ago among black voters is well within the margin of error. More on this soon. WHY THIS WRONG STORY?

-Arnaud461

It's hard to look at the generic landscape and then look at Obama's more narrow lead and not wonder who the voters are who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, upset about the economy but are voting against the so-called change agent.

Do you think either candidate will attach themselves to T. Boone Pickens current add campaign? How is his cause being looked at by the two campaigns?

-hpeterson

This Pickens campaign is one of the more under-covered fascinating sideshows of the campaign. Pickens is no McCain fan but a staunch Republican and that may be why he's decided not to help him out and instead decided to skip the middle man and push his agenda on his own. I know that I want to learn more about what Pickens is up to. Here's a pairing I'd like to see debate energy policy: Pickens and Gore.

Hey Chuck,

It seems interesting that foreign policy remains the key topic between the two candidates. If you were advising Senator Obama would you continue this quest to neutralize what appears the only relative strength of Senator McCain? The latest polling and indeed the general mood of people I know make it clear the 1992 analogue is true...."its the economy...stupid". Perhaps the Obama team is using that as an "ace in the hole" for post convention focus? Or perhaps a hedge against an October surprise?

-otter1

I know that the Obama campaign fears some October foreign policy surprise will help McCain and that's driving the short list regarding VP. That said, I still think the candidate that connects best on the economy will win; that foreign policy drove the primaries but not the general.

Chuck, I don't think Obama is looking for a National Security pick for VP, based purely on his comments looking for a "partner" or an "Al Gore or Dick Cheney" type. I think Kaine or Schweitzer would be his best choices, though Warner in place of Kaine, if you don't take his "Shermanesque" statement too seriously (I think there was a bit of a backtrack in Chris Cillizza's recent interview). Wanted to know your thoughts.

Secondly, I also wanted to know about the hypocrisy on McCain's statements against Obama and your reaction. Will the media call him on this or just let it go?

Week One: "Obama will say or do anything to win" and "He is a massive flip-flopper".

Week Two (this week): "Obama is too stubborn or inflexible and just like Bush".

Thanks again Chuck!

-Chris A.

Good catch on the week 1 vs. week 2 message hit... It's why campaigns need a message shop that stays together for a long time so they don't fall into a trap like that where they don't have a consistent hit.

As for your comfortable thought regarding VP, it's actually where I'm leaning as well. I think he wants a partner; that's why you should keep an eye on Kaine (as you said) but also Jack Reed who is with Obama as I type.

Thanks for hosting this -- always enjoy watching you.

What about Obama's upcoming trip to the Middle East and Europe? What is he hoping to accomplish, and what are the dangers for him? Do you think he'll visit Iraq/Afghanistan on this trip?

-Hen3ry

I think Obama's trying to let nervous older voters who are leaning to Obama but not sold visualize him as a world leader; Frankly, I think it's the ONLY goal of this trip. He's very weak right now (compared to previous Dem nominees) with older white voters over 65+; This is a very important group of folks in states like PA, MI, OH and FL...

Chuck, don't you think recent polls showing that voters view McCain as stronger than Obama on foreign affairs, despite McCain's confusion over Shiites and Sunnies, his failure to know that Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country in nearly 15 years, and his following Obama's lead on the Afghanistan issue (a "flip-flop), is a result of the media continuing to perpetuate the myth that McCain must know more because he's been around longer and is a veteran and the media's failure to focus on McCain's gaffes as much as it parses every nuance that comes out of Obama's mouth?

-Andrea-380338

McCain is synonymous with military service and Obama's not; it's as simple as that when it comes to McCain's strength in the polls on the national security issues. Obama will never match McCain in the polls on these issues but that may not prevent an Obama victory. Voters simply want to know will Obama be experienced ENOUGH on these issues. That was the case with Reagan in '80, Clinton in '92 and Dubya in '00

Hey Chuck, How do you expect MSNBC's veepstakes to be fair when all you guys did in the commentary was lavishly praise Biden?

i find it unfair how Chuck todd has a bias for Biden...even though he represents the same washington politics obama is against.

Sorry Mr. Todd, but biden is a terrible choice. I would much rather see Hillary on the ticket; she would at least bring SOME change (health care reform, FISA, etc)

-John-380343

I wasn't SHILLING for Biden, simply reporting what I know and what've been hearing. I have worried that our analysis would influence voters... that wasn't the intent... simply passing on what we think we know.

How much do you see race playing as a factor in the presidential race?

-skazoom33

It's going to be a big factor as far as turnout's concerned, that's a net plus for Obama. As for the other issue I'm assuming you are asking about, I think it's an issue for some older voters, possibly in states like MI, OH and PA and if those states are decided by a point or two in McCain's direction, then obviously, that could end up making it a big factor. It's one of the unknowns of this election. Will there be a slice of voters who would normally vote Dem but won't because of race? My guess is that there will but that those folks will be negated by the increased turnout among blacks and young folks.

I've heard you talk about possible huge Republican losses down the ballot. What data, polling or other info do you look at to track whether the Dems' overwhelming vote totals/turnout in some Congressional and state district primaries will hold or drop off by November?

-Lenore K.

I look at polls, fundraising and candidate recruiting primarily and in all three instances, Democrats have been dominant down the ballot. They've put SEN races in play that they have no business winning, while the Republicans have struggled to put normally vulnerable incumbent Dems in play. Ditto on the House level. Dems could pick up more senate seats in '08 than they did in '06; In fact, I think it's very likely. On the House front, Dems could actually equal their '06 gain (it's unlikely, but not out of the question) which is just amazing when you look at these districts individually. They were gerrymandered in the GOP's favor in many of these states and yet the party could lose another big chunk of seats Bush carried with 55%+.

This may get complex, but please try to answer this, if you can. I realize it involves speculation, but you of all people would be in the best position to answer: I'm starting to feel (and I've heard that others are as well) drastically weary of the entire election process due to the minute-by-minute, hyperextensive media coverage. Many people I know have simply stopped caring, and this incessant obsessing is driving them away.

So my questions are: Do you think that this new style of reporting elections will actually have a direct impact on the manner in which future elections are carried out? Like, will they maybe be held in a shorter time-frame so people will stay interested? Or will more voters be driven off because they are turned off? I realize it's difficult to predict, but I was curious if you had any thoughts on the matter.

-Patrick T., Davis, CA

Interesting question: Here's what worries me that voters start acting like pundits rather than hold candidates accountable on the issues they care about. I've noticed this more and more when I talk to folks around the country who are political junkies. I guess this is our fault in the media but the campaigns aren't innocent bystanders either. I love politics and I believe most Americans would love politics for the same reason I do: it's a competition about things that matter. And this cycle is proving this theory true; But I do hope that voters don't get so caught up in the competition-gaming part of all this, they lose sight of what they want out of their politicians and their government. I'm not sure this fully answers your question but I hope it begins to address the concern you have.

Sorry Chuck,

I had another question and I rarely get the chance to ask but in regards to his German speech. I wanted to know of your idea of having lots of Germans waving American flags during the speech. I think it would send an ENORMOUS message to the world and the U.S.

-Chris A.

Maybe but it also could turn some voters off who think it's a little presumptuous to hold a political rally in a foreign country. Obama's walking a fine line on this Berlin event.

Which Senate seat do the Democrats have a better chance of picking up, Minnesota or Mississippi?

-Ben-380352

Mississippi...I think Franken's got lots of baggage right now; Obama might carry him over the finish line but it's the only way Franken wins at this point.

I notice the left media is eager to dismiss Hillary as Obama running mate. It almost feels like they rather have Obama lose without her than win with her.
This election is going to be all about white women and everyone knows that. It will all come to narrowing the white vote for Obama and the only wild card are Hillary female supporters. Everyone in the left seems to think they will fall in line and vote Democrat but I have a feeling they will turn their back on Obama if he fails to pick Hillary as VP.
An Obama/Hillary ticket will be a SURE win in November because she will brig the margin of white women needed to offset the white male vote McCain will get. That's game set, match set. My question is: Why isn't the left media making that clear to Obama and his supporters? Win with Hillary or risk losing without her.

-Troy W

I think this election is all about whites over 65 years old... I think they are the swing vote and it's possible Hillary Clinton helps with that group but does she end up hurting Obama with independents in Colorado or in Iowa or in Virginia? And then there's Bill Clinton: if Hillary couldn't figure out how to use him effectively, how will Obama?

Chuck

Do you just sit at home counting electoral votes in possible senarios all day because you really have this stuff down? Your the best.

-sensico

Ha... not all the time; I am trying to teach my 4yo the state capitals

Chuck, Joe Scarbough keeps calling you Chucky-T. We all know that you don't like that label. Could you express your feeling toward this label. Oh yeah, you can always call him Joey-S.

You and your team is doing a great job. We all miss Tim. Take care.

-Larry Solomon

I have hated the "chuckie" moniker since I was 5, even before the horror movie came out... That said, it doesn't bother me too much since my man Joe only means it in the best possible way... I think my initial reaction was the scars of childhood...

Chuck:

Latest polls show Obama up by 6 over McCain while losing big-time on the "Commander-In-Chief Test"
and with only about 39% of Hillarary's women supporters on-board. It appears that the upward potential he would generate by picking up a portion of just these voters would make him unstoppable.

Do you agree?

-Ira Lapin

I think if Obama could guarantee that Bill Clinton would not be a distraction either during the campaign or in the White House, he'd pick Hillary for all the reasons you stated. But it's clear Obama's not comfortable with the idea of governing the country with a backseat driver living at the Naval Observatory.

Chuck, I appreciate your hard work. I realize it is very difficult to show neutrality. Some say you are too harsh on Obama, or give McCain a free ride. Others say the opposite.

What criteria do you use in selecting stories? Framing your stories? How do you seek impartiality?

I guess my big question is, Why does MSNBC keep Pat Buchanan when there are better conservative analysts to choose from? Would it not serve you well to be the left of center news network and throw Pat (and Joe) under the bus?

-Ron Indiana

I hate this trend of ideological news... what's wrong with simply seeking the truth but staying ideologically impartial? The politics of the 19th century was a mess and one of the contributing factors was the lack of a media that was seen as impartial and trustworthy. If we go back to the 19th century media model, it'll be a disaster as far as our government is concerned. I think the NBC and MSNBC lineup of impartial journalists and bipartisan commentators gives everyone the full picture of the American political scene. Some outlets attempt a partisan approach, some attempt a clinical approach while we present the complete picture; It's a mix of hard news and smart commentary. That's what politics is all about in the real world and I think we are the media outlet that's best living and reporting and examining the real political world. I know I sound like some marketing person for the network but I wouldn't be working for NBC if I didn't think it was the network that simply does politics better than anyone else.

Chuck. For the 100th Veep question... Why not Bob Graham?

Location, Location, Location... 2x Governor, 3x Senator of FLORIDA!!
WAR? Early critic and voted against the war. Tells others "There will be blood on your hands!"

Moderate, Fiscally conservative, Environmentalist, Integrity beyond reproach, Immigration pro, and most importantly huge Foreign Policy expert!!

He's a little eccentric and not a great campaigner but Florida loves him. Why no talk about him?

-Doug Crimm

Graham may be part of an Obama administration, possibly in some intelligence capacity. But as a campaigner, he seemed to leave some Dem pols unimpressed in '04 which may be why he's not showing up on vetting lists. He's a throwback of sorts when it comes to political campaigns and in another time might have ended up in the Oval Office; I certainly think the resume is there and, frankly, might be a more complete VP resume than, say, a Sam Nunn. But I think he just doesn't seem to have the campaign chops that Obama might be looking for. But, on paper, you are right; he looks like an interesting pick.

Hi Chuck –

How plausible do you think a 269-269 electoral tie is? I see three realistic scenarios: 1) Obama flips IA, NM, and NV, while holding on to all the Kerry states. 2) Obama flips IA, CO, and either NV or NM, yet loses NH. 3) Obama flips IA, CO, VA, and either NV or NM, yet loses MI.

What would happen if it ends up in an electoral tie? Who would be favored to prevail if this happened?

-Tad Davis

Well, a friend of mine once ran a statistical analysis of this possibility and noted that there was a 1 in 55 chance of an evenly fought election ending in a 269=269 tie. Well, guess what, this is our country's 56th presidential election, so we're due, right? Seriously, it's so possible that I think some lawmakers ought to amend the Constitution to avoid this potential disaster at some point in the future. Can you imagine the outcry from folks if in a 269-269 tie, the candidate who didn't get the most votes nationally wins the vote in the House or that the candidate who didn't win the most states ends up winning the vote in House? No one will believe it was a fair outcome... why not flip a coin... The Constitution ought to be amended to say the winner of the national popular vote gets one extra electoral vote simply to avoid this possibility or maybe expand the House by one member and make it so that there is an odd number of electoral votes. The fact that a 269-269 tie is possible is ludicrous.

Chuck-

Why isn't Bill Richardson getting as much attention for VP as Sam Nunn, Evan Bayh, and Tim Kaine? It seems to me he offers at least as much, if not more, than anyone else: he's Hispanic, from a battleground state, from a western state, and has a tip-top CV, just to mention a few obvious things? Plus he's well-liked, well-respected, and pretty well-known (compared to the other candidates)...Your thoughts are appreciated.

-Jason-380381

It's a good question; ask the folks who vetted VP candidates in '00, '04 and '08.

Hey Chuck,

1) In light of some recent events with Obama leading the conversation towards Afghanistan and McCain was forced to follow suit. Now you have the US willing to attend negotiations with Iran, isn't it safe to say Obama seems to be leading the agenda this week? 2) Chuck isn't it a little unfair that the Media was touting the poll from ABC/POST poll which asked "Who would make the best Commander-in-Chief?" The rest of the question read "Who would make the best Commander-in-Chief in leading the military?" Doesn't the full sentence add a little light as to why McCain scored 72% and Obama 48% or do these extra words make no difference? 3) Several state polls have come out this week showing Obama leading in Colorado, MI, WA, OR, and being competitive in NC, and SC, how is it that the State polls are showing Obama more strength than the National Polls? Which one carries more weight, State or National Polls?

-GC-380382

1. I think Obama deserves some credit for driving the message this week... McCain's been reacting more this week than in previous ones. I'm guessing the Obama folks believe they are winning the week. 2. I agree that adding the word "military" could skew the answer a tad. The NBC/WSJ poll comes out next week; we don't use the word "military" in our "Commander in chief" question so we'll see if that makes a difference. 3. I always believe you should follow the state polls more closely than the national polls. That said, the current crop of state polls are being conducted by some of the most unreliable pollsters in the business so I'm not comfortable judging this race based on those numbers. But I do attempt to gather up as much info on state polls being conducted by professional pollsters as I can. Some of the numbers I get my hands on are from pollsters conducting polls for senate and gov candidates and those are the numbers I trust more than what you see floating around the internet.

Chuck –

In terms of political theater, it seems the Obama campaign is the gold standard and the McCain campaign is, well, the (lime) green standard. How does McCain counter the image of Obama accepting the Democratic nomination in front of 80k people on "I have a Dream Day"? Doesn't the fact that McCain's acceptance speech is only one week later put McCain in a terrible position in terms of comparison?

-zackstephenson

I have been surprised that the McCain campaign hasn't been more imaginative in presenting their candidate visually. I think many Republicans are hoping this part of the campaign improves a great deal in the next few weeks.

I wonder if the S&L scandal will in any way affect the presidential election. McCain was essentially cleared of any wrongdoing, but there was always a murkiness about the whole affair in many minds. I've often assumed it was why he never made any real progress in previous attempts at the presidency. Do you think with the recent bank issues that this situation will be raised at all in this election?

-Shelley-318548

I doubt it will come up though with the current banking mess, it's possible there are some print outlets who decide to revisit the entire S&L debacle of the '80s. Whether that means McCain will have to re-answer questions about it is unclear. My guess is that it won't become a major issue.

Chuck...

Do you think the debates will make a significant impact on the public perception of Obama as Commander-In-Chief? How much poll change do you traditionally see after a debate? And then what percent of that change "sticks"?

-Maggie-380396

I think the debates could be ENORMOUSLY important... in fact, they'll be decisively important...

New Post: Chuck:1) Is it me or has Campbell Brown on CNN become much more edgeir in her reporting after she was mocked on SNL? No Bias No bull=CORNEY. 2). Is there a way to gage in all the polling what the youth vote is looking like? Most of the polls are registered likely voters and that usually mean older folks. 3). If Obama picks Clinton than there is no way McCain can overcome that in the polls right? I feel the McCain campaign fears a Clinton VP as well as he RIGHT wing, they all say there is no way he can pick her it will go against all that he has said, they are already saying this now but the differece is that he would be uniting the base and women and
I think they are waiting and hoping that Barack does not pick her if he does they will pick Romney because everyone else will not hold there own against her. If he chooses Bayh or Nunn the will counter with Palin or Cantor ( New comers). Because the Obama camp is so deft at the art of surprise and doing things differently I feel that all the conventional wisdom and analysis is out the window.

-Jason-SMC

I only worked with Campbell for a VERY short period of time at NBC but I think she's terrific; CNN's lucky to have her. 2) We're going to be doing some deeper analysis on new voters to measure just how significant they could be in this election. Look for the polling in the fall. 3) Interesting theory... we'll know soon enough. I think if it wasn't for the Bill factor, she'd be a more likely pick.

Do you think that Obama is being held to a higher standard than McCain by the mainstream media? Or does he just receive the more scrutinous attention because he is the front-runner?

-Chris-380404

I think in the next few months, you'll believe things have been fairly even as far as coverage is concerned.

Chuck,

This week we've heard a lot about Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. But it seems that Pakistan's involvement in the War on Terror has been largely (though not completely) ignored. Do you see Pakistan becoming an issue in this campaign, especially considering Sen. Obama's comments during the Democratic Primaries about not being afraid to bomb Pakistan? And if he's serious about that, can he actually make a distinction from the "bomb Iran" joke for which his campaign has lambasted Sen. McCain?

-raven2017

I am surprised Pakistan hasn't been a bigger issue but I think, barring some surprising confrontation between Pakistan and another country or civil problems inside the country, the country won't end up becoming a major campaign issue.

Chuck,

Do you feel that the MSM is attempting to turn this presidential campaign into more of a horse race than it is? For example, yesterday McCain moved his position on Afghanistan to one which is closer to what Obama has been saying for months and it is barely mentioned (I think the only news program that presented the shift in this context in a substantive manner was Countdown), yet we have been hearing for over a week the erroneous meme that Obama has "flip flopped" on Iraq to move closer to McCain.

There are many examples of this type of campaign message/position editorializing that seems to have the sole purpose of evening the playing field in McCain's favor and, therefore making the contest more competitive.

I am curious about what you (a seemingly even-handed ref) think and why you think that way.

Gretchen

-Gretchen T.

I've heard this criticism before; I just don't see it; the facts are the facts; in the states, this is a very close election; It may end up breaking open at the end but right now the election looks like it could be another close one; We'd be doing the country a disservice if we decided to cover this campaign as if it's a foregone conclusion if everything we're studying about this election indicates there's a good chance (say 75%) this will be a close race and only a, say, 25% chance it'll be a landslide.

I believe Senator Obama would strengthen his campaign if he talked equally about his African roots as he does about the roots he has in Middle America (Kansas). That would make him more appealing not only to so-called mainstream Americans, but to recent immigrants, too...including the all-important Hispanic voting bloc. Don't you agree?

-Kwik

I agree that his story sounds similar to many successful immigrant stories in this country and that could help him connect with certain voting constituencies.

Chuck,

First let me say I hope they give you MTP. You are def. cut from the same cloth as our Tim Russert was.

The Barr effect? Is he a landslide maker for Obama? It seems he further handicaps McCain by pulling from his share of the Indys?

-otter1

I think any vote Barr gets is McCain protest vote and I think McCain protest voters only vote for Barr if they think the election is already over.

Chuck: Why isn't the Mainstream and Cable media constantly contrasting the McCain of 2000 to the McCain of 2008 rather than allowing him to use the "maverick" and "independent" labels he would like to use in this election to appeal to independents, when in truth, he has flip-flopped to garner the neo-conservative and Christian right support for the nomination and the general election. It appears that whenever the press personally likes a candidate, they ignore the obvious shifts in his positions for political expedicancy. I strongly and financially supported the John McCain of 2000, but I do not know who this McCain is and therefore gave my $4,600 this time to Obama. Barack's shift on public financing, his FISA vote and his comments on the DC hand gun decision by the Supreme Court did not go unreported or underreported by any news organization or any poliutcial pundit. Please be fair and balanced unlike the "animal" network that claims to be.

-James L. Mason

I think once this campaign is over, you'll believe the media was even handed in its critiques and analysis of both candidates. If not, let me have it

It is very frustrating to see/hear the MSM discuss Hispanics in this election as a monolithic group. In Florida alone you cannot compare the immigrant experiences, socioeconomic status, demographic characteristics, political interests, etc. of people of Cuban, Puerto Rican and Mexican origin. (And, that is just mentioning the largest Hispanic groups in the state.) Is there any discussion about this is in newsrooms or backrooms? Is it ignorance? Considered unimportant? IMO, for an industry that is still largely white, male dominated, it comes off as pretty uninformed.

-FLDem

As a native Floridian, I agree with your critique wholeheartedly. Hispanic voters are not monolithic; I know that and we need to do better in this regard. It's something we are attempting to fix.

Chuck - Some of the questions in these polls from "respected" news organizations almost sound like push polling to me...

I.E. "are you in favor of drilling to lower gas prices"...well of course I am in favor of anything that lowers gas prices but it seems to "push" the idea as being a true statement when there is much debate

I.E. "do you think Obama/McCain would be a better Commander-In-Chief" with Commander being more loaded towards a Military stereotype...Rather than asking "do you think Obama/McCain would be a good president"

How come these statements and others in the media get attention with little or no actual scrutiny towards the actual premise of the questions...

-JR-FromDallas

I understand your critiques on this and I think news orgs need to make it clear how they asked the question. That said, I do think it's important to test a question like to see if that message can work with voters. If voters could be swayed by a message similar to what you outlined. So there's news value there, we just have to make sure we report the question and result in context.

I was wondering if you knew this man mike steele and was wondering what you thought of him as mccain vp does he have a chance?

-greg-380431

I know him the way all folks in Washington know people; I've met him a couple of times and interviewed him once. I think had he won his senate race in '06 in Maryland, he'd be a serious VP contender. But since he hasn't proven electoral success on his own, I don't think he's a serious candidate for McCain.

My question is similar to several others.

Both McCain, and his advisor Randy Scheunemann have both made several statements in the last few days that get little/no press coverage....for example. 1.Scheunemann: Obama is the new Bush.
2. Schienemann: Obama sees losing the war in Iran as politically expedient.
3. McCain: Young people paying for their elders SS benefits (the way the system has worked since its inception) is a disgrace.....

and on and on and on....... I think McCain is getting a free ride....why?

-Kathleen-291855

I don't think the McCain campaign believes they are getting a free ride and if this is the free ride; I think they want their money back...

Oh, and also, I'm a BIG Robert Guillaume fan (I grew up on Sports Night). According to IMDb, there were three possible endings shot, but none of them was used (hence Rob H's post). However, there's an interview on the first season DVD set (which everybody should go and buy!!) where they claim it was Benson who ended up winning.
-raven2017

Sports Night was a GREAT show... should have ended up on HBO... but I digress...

Chuck, I love your work on MSNBC. Keep up the impartial journalism!!

I am in the military and it seems as if the majority of members support Obama. Is there any polling data to support this available?

-DRJ-380440

Usually, the Army Times does an active duty military poll at some point during the campaign; the results will be interesting this year.

The days of utilizing imagery alone to get votes are fading fast with the advent of the internet. Many are resourcing the internet to get to the bottom line 'truth'. Things we want to know and things we didn't want to know can now be found on the internet using an array of techniques along with wait and see what pops up on a particular subject. I believe we are seeing a much more informed voting populace. Even those news medias who have strong leanings either way are seeing an audience that is more apt to follow up on what is being reported as well as much more able to decipher what news media slant is. I have to wonder if the candidates and political leaders are aware of their constituents ability or do they still think we are stupid? Case in point: It seem the news media was taken by surprise when Obama began to win the democrat race. (News media's pre-measured power of swaying the public wasn't working) And too, the many farces we were able to debunk using the internet and half truths we have found. Are the candidates and political representatives aware that WE THE PEOPLE do have the ability to resource information and that what they say and do is being looked at with a fine tooth comb? This is just the beginning of a more informed public. It is my hope that the days of SPIN & WIN are coming to an end.

-Moderate voter

I certainly think that the rules are changing because of technology; but folks should realize, the rules ALWAYS change. What worked in 1984 didn't work in 1988 and what works in 2008 may not work in 2012.

Chuck,

Do you think Indiana is in play?

if you remember the primary, every poll before Clinton lead by 5 - 10 points and she win by only 1 point.

On realclearpolitics there are only one recent poll from SurveyUSA(21-23/06) and Obama lead by 1 point.

I think the Obama camp have internal poll and Indiana is very close.

-Arnaud461

I do think Indiana is in play... I think the combination of a downturn in the economy and the fact that Obama's from a neighboring state could be enough to make things interesting here. The late primary for the Dems also helps Obama. Lots of odd intangibles which could flip the state so it's one I'm keeping an eye on.

Chuck, do you honestly think that coverage thus far have been fair and balanced? Could you please look at the number and length of headlines Obama has to McCain. Joe S. and Chris Matthews are really bad about it. McCain's gaffes are excused and interpreted right on the air. How many times has Obama received the benefit of the doubt?

-DrStrangedog

I think you can take any snapshot of the campaign and claim bias in one direction or the other. That said, Obama's received the benefit of the doubt at plenty of points in this campaign; Just ask the Clinton campaign.

Ouch, I got here late!

Hey Chuck: I want to get back to that Axelrod memo Tim used to trot out every once in a while. I like Matthews' take on that, the only way they could predict so accurately, so far in advance, and contrary to the polling in early February, is if the political landscape really doesn't change that much. Momentum is an illusion based on the order of primaries and demographics is truly ruling the actual final vote.

That makes sense to me as a mathematician; that some kind of factor analysis on demographic data predicts the final voting well, and few things actually change people's voting pattern (although the Rev. Wright tapes seemed to reduce the accuracy of the Feb memo).

What is your take on the uncanny accuracy of Axelrod's memo?

-Tony C. SA TX

I think demographics can pinpoint an election with a 3-5 points and because of the way Democrats allocate delegates, it was easy to create a fairly accurate formula. This is much more difficult for the fall since a swing of 1 point can swing an entire state from one column to the other.

Chuck, can speak to the issue of when Senator McCain will "follow up" on his viagra and prescription birth control question from last week?

-Roofin Reality

In McCain's defense, I saw a candidate who desperately didn't want to say the word Viagra.

Chuck, Can you tell me what you think about most of the Media not refuting all these rumors about Obama every time they come up. The media if they want to be fair and impartial then it would make them look much better to the watching public that they do this as often as possible.

-J.forObama

I think the media in general has to get more aggressive in debunking Internet created myths. It used to be, those of us in the MSM believed if they didn't report on something, we were keeping the audience from getting false information. Now, I think it's the job of the MSM to let folks know what is NOT true because viewers are likely to get false information in other places.

Chuck

In all the polling data are they using cell phones also?
The reason I ask is neither of my under 30 year old children have land phones.

Thanks, old white woman for Obama (because of those children)

-KMG

there has been some experimentation with some cell phone polling and so far it hasn't differed much from traditional landline polling. if it did, we'd be incorporating it in our own polling.

Chuck, It seems to me that this election is turning into a referendum on Sen. Obama. If this is the case, I actually think the McCain camp would be thrilled, because they haven't a shot in hell if it is a referendum of Pres. Bush. But, I wonder about what the Obama campaign would think.

Do you think the Obama camp will be happy if this election becomes a referendum of Sen. Obama?

-JustinL

I think the Obama campaign knew it would be inevitable that this campaign would become about them at some point. If they simply ran a campaign that was about making this campaign about Bush, then they'd only be playing for a narrow victory... if they embrace the referendum on Obama frame, then they have a shot at the landslide scenario.

John McCain continuously refers to Czechoslovakia, a country that ceased to exist 15 years ago. He cannot make the basic distinction between Sunnis and Shiites, let alone figure out who is aligned with Iran and Al Qaeda. He laughably strolls through Baghdad in a flack jacket accompanied by a fleet of Apache helicopters and dozens of armed men and then proceeds to tell us that Baghdad is approaching normalcy. And he had the good judgment to but into all of George Bush's bogus justifications for invading Iraq. Furthermore, John McCain's closest adviser for Iraq is Randy Scheunemann, a primary enabler of Ahmed Chalabi, the fraudulent Iraqi nationalist who sold the Bush Administration bogus intelligence and swindled American tax payers out of hundreds of millions of dollars. The fact that McCain listens to this guy at all should call into question his foreign policy judgment. Yet, every time I turn on your channel, I hear David Gregory or Andrea Mitchell blathering about how John McCain has mastered the details of foreign policy and has unquestionable credentials, as if he's some sort of Yoda-like foreign policy guru. Why? Why is John McCain's self-proclaimed expertise on foreign affairs and ability to assume the roll of Commander in Chief taken for granted by the MSM and why are his frequent and obvious failings and misjudgments not presented to the public fairly and accurately?

-jbentley-377582

McCain has a reservoir of good will with many folks when it comes to his knowledge of national security; maybe you won't believe that's fair but I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt with many voters which is what the analysis you are upset about is reflecting. That said, McCain can't continue to do this or it will eventually begin drying up that reservoir.

Chuck-

Is that a goatee or a Van Dyke?

Dave in EL

-Dave-380475

you tell me... I prefer goatee... I wasn't a fan of Dick Van Dyke

The only way I will even consider voting for Obama is if Hillary is on the ticket. If he doesn't pick her as VP, and I recognize that it is entirely his choice, I will be writing in her name on my ballot.

-mcm-306921
I am with you here. There are millions of Hillary voters that share your view.
In the latest polling, Obama is only getting 39% of Clinton supporters. That number will go down considerably if Hillary is not VP. It will go up to 80% if Hillary is VP. That will be the margin of Obama win/loss in November.

-Troy W
This is something I don't understand, so I want someone to explain it to me. Why wouldn't you vote for Obama unless Hillary is on the ticket? Is it because you think that he can't do a good job without her? Because you would vote for him if she is on the ticket, clearly you think he would be a good President, right? Or do you think she would "quietly rule" in her VP spot? I think they are very close on policy issues, surely the opposite ends of the world from McCain... Do you just think there is not ONE other person who would be a good VP? I'm really confused on this issue. It sounds as if the people who supported Hillary just can't get over the fact that she lost. It is kind of an immature position to take, with so much at stake in this election, to write a candidate's name in who is not on the ballot. You might be making your own kind of statement, but you're also voting for McCain by NOT voting for Obama.

-jonymc

This is an interesting sub-thread that's started... I'd like to see this debate continued.

Hey, Chuck - What would you say are some of the biggest challenges political journalists face when it comes to "packaging" information for the cable news networks? Unlike the print media, y'all have to get information out there in a few phrases, not in a few paragraphs or pages. Is there anything different with this election than in prior ones? Is there anything particularly challenging about either candidate? Thanks.

-Demagirl

Well, you nailed the toughest part of the job: getting the information out in a few phrases... and making sure it's in context and folks get it right. The beauty of cable though is that you have even more time than you do on network. It's even harder on the broadcast shows.

Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough seemed to think it was of monumental importance that Barack Obama didn't know how to bowl. Now, apparently John McCain can't even use Google or the Internet. WHy is this not an issue? Does this not raise basic, serious questions about John McCain? Do Americans want to be led through the heart of the "information Age" by a guy who can't even find his way onto the entry ramp to the Information Super Highway? Does this not say something about how John McCain lives in a different world from the rest of us in America who actually live in the 21st-century? Does this speak to an inability or unwillingness on the part of John McCain to learn and adapt in the modern world?

-jbentley-377582

I am surprised that the MCCain campaign allowed it to come out that McCain was proficient on the internet or wasn't an emailer. Then again, knowing how much MCCain likes to chat on the cell phone, I'm guessing his staff has purposely tried to keep him away from learning to Blackberry. Once he started, he'd never start. I hear he's a true gadget geek; that he loves his TiVO, among other toys.

Why is Msnbc not fair when it comes to McCain why you guys all support Obama, and that's okay but be fair with your audience there are supporters of both candidates. Yes I do believe McCain can win. Does Obama have some stock or something in MSNBC you realize you (MSNBC) were part of Sen Clinton's problem

-Mary Phoenix

I find it hard to believe that MSNBC is the reason Clinton lost the primary. That's an odd charge. I think if you watch our coverage in totality, you'll realize it's the most grounded in political reality compared to the coverage on other outlets who didn't reflect the political reality nearly as well as we did and do.

Wow. Everyone can't be wrong. McCain is getting a pass. No one is saying anything close to the opposite.

-Dr Strangedog

It's also possible that most of the questioners in this thread are Obama supporters and are blind to some things when it comes to their own candidate.

Why aren't you (news media) covering anything of substance with regards to the candidates?
If we had a nickel for every time we've heard, "people have got to get to know Obama"...well if you would perhaps cover what he is actually saying and doing, instead of CONSTANTLY REPEATING the misperceptions, rumors and right-wing talking points you might help to create an opportunity for viewers to get to know him. His speech on Iraq yesterday was BRILLIANT, AND NARY A MENTION OF IT!
And McCain! The guy flip-flops and mis-speaks CONSTANTLY, and all we ever hear is opinion and conjecture, about what the panelists think--about what the American people think--about who McCain is and what he stands for.
Come on people!! There's too much at stake this time. Let's hear it, all of it, and then we'll make up our minds based on real information.

-Gerri & Ross

I think we do our best to cover this campaign on both issues and character which is how the country picks their presidents.

I think we do our best to cover this campaign on both issues and character which is how the country picks their presidents.

-I. Lang

Well, we have a correspondent who is totally devoted to covering energy and environmental issues (Anne Thompson) and I think we're starting to cover many of these issues in more detail. Considering the importance of energy resources in this campaign, I expect you'll see our coverage intensify.

That latest Quinnipiac poll's cross-tabs () show that Independants, Whites and Men all have an issue with Hillary Clinton as Veep

A poll of likely voters were asked:
"Would you like Barack Obama to pick Hillary Clinton to be his vice-presidential running mate or not?"

Ind:
Yes: 35%
No: 54%

Men:
Yes: 29%
No: 45%

Wht:
Yes: 31%
No: 53%

And they were also asked:
If Barack Obama chooses Hillary Clinton to be his vice-presidential running mate, would that make you more likely to vote for Obama, less likely to vote for Obama, or
doesn't it make a difference?"

Ind:
More: 18%
Less: 28%

Men:
More: 14%
Less: 28%

Wht:
More: 17%
Less: 29%

Considering this poll, as well as recent data dissected by Chris Cilliza showing () that contrary to the media's hang-wringing and playing up of Obama's Appalachian problem and his problem with those die-hard Hillary supporters, he is overwhelming winning or staying neutral or close with all the major problematic demographics from the primaries.

I draw from this data that Obama will be more hurt by Clinton, not only in specific micro-demographics but in a hollistic sense in respect to his message and his public perception, that there is no sound argument for putting her on the ticket. And you know, Vice President's actually have to WORK with the President in some capacity or another. And internecine proxy battles between President and Vice president, which I would fully expect of a Hillary Veep, doesn't seem to lend anything towards the argument of Clinton helping Obama govern. Nor does it address any of Obama's perceived lack of experience with military matters.

In my mind, she violates a cardinal set of rules for veep's: don't hurt the President, and don't upstage the President. She has the ability to do both and simultaneously kill Obama's chances. So obviously with all the loading of this question packed as tight as a black hole, I will put to to you Chuck (Viva Chuck Todd!):

Why in the name of Posiden would Obama ever nominate Hillary as his Veep???

-Idiosyncronaut

I am surprised by the number of Clinton VP questions I'm getting this week... I would be surprised if Obama picked her but we'll see.

Is the media going to cover more on McCain? I understand that Obama is the new guy and the front runner, but the assumption that everyone already knows McCain doesnt work for younger voters. I am 34 and am somewhat familiar with him, but I dont know his history on a lot of things that would be relevant in making a decision on who to vote for.

-Gayle.R

I think the coverage of McCain will only increase.

If McCain can't use Google, why should I believe that he's going to be able to successfully navigate the intricacies of the Middle East or figure out how to solve Social Security?

-jbentley-377582

again, I'm surprised this piece of information came out. McCain strikes me as someone who would be very computer literate.

Chuck- It looks like Biden is going to win the Veepstakes on MSNBC. What chance do you think he has of being picked by Obama? I think he would be a terrific running mate and Vice-President. Thoroughly enjoy all of your comments and reports on the election. Keep up the good work!

-John VanWinkle

I'm assuming he's in the top 5 on Obama's list..If not him, then someone with his resume is likely; just my guess; national security plus experience plus Catholic equals interesting potential running mate.

Chuck, I thought that McCain and Obama had to post their 2nd quarter fundraising totals by yesterday. I've been trying to find out what was filed with the FEC, but can't find anything? What gives?

-Katie McGee

20th of each month is when the numbers are due

Chuck, what is a topic that the public DOESN'T generally raise that surprises you?

-DrStrangedog

On the issue front: I'm surprised that Social Security hasn't popped as an issue. Maybe the public just doesn't believe pols will do anything about it or want to confront it until they absolutely have to.

Also, I'm surprised personal vices of the candidates isn't something the public wants to know more about (i.e. smoking, gambling etc.)

Greetings, I am quite curious about the tremendous fluctuation in the daily polls, even the weekly polls. The first question I have is whether the questions are changed to include the current news cycle sound bites or are the questions the same? It seems that modifying some of the core questions to include the current news cycle sound bites would be the major determinant in the fluctuation. If it was a bad day for your candidate, perhaps your responses would be colored by that rather than a true measure of the candidate's ability to lead and govern. I mean we all have good days and bad days. Also, if the core questions change how are pollsters able to accurately measure the sample data over any particular interval, particularly weekly or monthly (i.e., now vs. May)?

-Ajax_44

The polls appear to fluctuate because there are a lot of bad pollsters releasing bad information. If you stick to a few trusted pollsters, you'll see the polls don't fluctuate as much because the public doesn't change its mind as fast as some of these charlatans make you believe.

With regards to the New Yorker cover, I think the biggest crime is that the fuss over what is on the front page obscures what was a great article on the inside by Ryan Lizza, one of a few in which Obama doesn't play the role of messiah. Coincidently, this is the Obama I like, however I'm guessing most who read it will come away with a negative impression of the Sen. My question is whether you think there will be room in this election for Obama's time in Chicago to be discussed? It seems relevant, but it certainly isn't a subject that his campaing discusses much, and the right only points to the negative. Will it be a subject that MSNBC decides to delve into?

-JustinL

I think we will delve into Obama's Chicago roots. I imagine the convention week will be when many media outlets do this story.

Two questions: First, it seems to me that most TV journalists are just mailing it in--just parroting the campaigns' talking points rather than applying some kind of truth analysis. I think they did this in 04 as well. Is this now the standard for campaign coverage? If so, what's the point? How I miss Tim!!

Second (and related), why all the pundrity on Obama's "need" to be a guy you want to have a beer with? Don't you think anyone has learned the consequences of that as a presidential metric?

-anj

I'd like to think we're doing it a bit better at NBC and MSNBC... hopefully you'll notice this over time. And I miss Tim as well... I keep waiting for him to walk into the bureau...

Oh Yeah, Chuck,

One more veep question: What do you think of Gov. Bob Easeley? I saw him speak at the NEA on CSPAN, he was great.

My all-star list is:
Time Kaine
Joe Biden
Bob Easely
Mark Warner
Jim Webb (if only he was a governor and had some economic street cred... and also a unicorn..)
Kathleen Sebelius

-Idiosyncronaut

Easley is someone who I thought could get more play but his second term has been a bit more of a political struggle in NC.

Chuck, I know you addressed why you think the MSM has given more scrutiny to Obama. But a different question working off of that premise would be; Do you think that this perception is a problem for the MSM?

If people start to view to the MSM as not being even-handed when it comes to something as important as the presidential election, will people start to lose faith in you guys as the #1 source for political news? Personally, I think NBC, MSNBC and CNN are well on their way to making this a reality. (I don't mention Fox News because everyone already knows they're not a real news organization.)

-Chris-380404

I worry that perception will become reality... it's what we all worry about... clearly the partisan campaigns against the media (and conducted by some who claim to be IN THE media) hasn't helped; The losing side in any campaign always blames the media; it's just the way it is.

What version of MSNBC are some of you watching? To say "MSNBC is slanted against Obama", is craziest thing I have ever heard. David Axelrod , Obama's campaigne manager, is on "Morning Joe"
every freaking morning. "Countdown" with Keith is the most one side, left winged, anti right, anti Bush,
anti Mccain, Anti conservative show ever created.....EVER! So to say MSNBC isn't giving Obama a fair
shake, you aren't watching the same MSNBC I am.

-Lance Texas

I think it's bizarre so many people attempt to judge an entire network by one news and commentary show. NBC and MSNBC has a balance of news and commentary that is grounded in political reality and is a reflection on what American politics is all about.

Question about Ohio: how important will Gov. Strickland be in helping Obama in Ohio? Is his most important role to shore up Clinton voters (whom the Governor endorsed) or to go after Strickland's base, the southern Ohio vote, mostly voting on values/security and the areas largely ignored by the last 2 Democratic candidates?

Also, how much will border politics play into the electoral map (ex., courting KY and WV voters and trying to get a carryover effect into southern Ohio)? -AK482

I think it's tough for a governor of any party to translate his/her support to a presidential candidate, particularly in a general election. Possibly in a primary with party stalwarts, but not with swing voters. As for Obama's strategy for winning the state; I think it begins and ends in Southern Ohio; he has to over-perform Kerry

Have any of you aspiring journalists checked out where Obama's father and stepfather are now or what his contact was with them in the past 20 years?
I like him, but Michelle sure came across as a radical until just recently. Has anyone checked into her social work history?
I like the image he projects and what I hear from him, but I'm a woman and this type of smooth talking guy has tricked me before! I want to be sure.

-Rach-341698

I think what's more interesting about all of this father talk is how we've regularly elected presidents who have had father issues, either because they didn't have one or because they had one who had set too high of expectations.

Reagan and Carter apparently didn't have these issues but so many of our presidents had either no relationship or odd relationships with their fathers. Discuss!

Chuck,
Canadian corporations that need manual laborers have a system where they get in touch with one of their governmental agencies and specify the number of people needed and other pertinent data. The agency gets in touch with, lets say , a Mexican governmental agency that finds the number of people needed. Those people are then flown to Canada with a special visa and work there for the duration of their contract. When the work is done , they are flown back to Mexico under the supervision of the government. Every body here seem to win, The farmers get the help needed for only the time needed. The workers pay Income taxes and when the work is done they are returned to their country ready for another assignment . It's not a complete solution to our illegal immigrants but I think the US government can come up with a similar process. What do you think ....???

-fern-380614

Well, here's what I don't get, why haven't we looked at the situation in Mexico and wondered why so many folks can't find work down there.

Chuck,

Q: Why is McCain's every petty mistake raked over the coals, while Obama's huge, deep-seated problems are only mentioned on the surface, then explained away (or whined away)? Every time O makes a gaff, it becomes a "photo op" or an opportunity for free PR?
McCain's errors are shown over and over with hardly a comment, much less free time to get to know him and his wife on national tv.

Thanks - You have a great forum going.

-Rach-341698

Do you work for the New Yorker?

What's your take on the age issue regarding McCain? Lets face it, Obama would not be the youngest person ever to be president if he won, but McCain would be the oldest. IMO, it does matter. It speaks to so many generational issues. If we look at it from a health perspective, McCain is much more likely to be decimated by the stress of the serving than a younger candidate. The media frequently looks at the before and after pictures of presidential candidates and explores the wear the stress of being leader of the free world takes upon the person. I think its a fair topic to explore. I don't want to have a president die in office in my life time and while I realize a whack-a-doodle could manage to shoot or kill a sitting president, its not as likely as a health issue. And McCain seems to have lots of them 1500 pages of them....my father lived with congestive heart failure for 10 years (many ambulance rides over that time) and he never came close to that many pages (yes, I saw his file). Secondly, age matters because the world has changed dramatically since the 60s. Not only do we communicate differently, we pay differently, we ship differently, we do business differently, we bank differently, we do a whole host of things differently. CEOs have failed to understand this and businesses have gone under. Technology and the effects of global economy has dramatically changed the security needs as well. A cyber assault could be devastating to our business and our economy-after all who'd have guess that the Enron loop hole could have done so much to damage our oil/gas prices-all through the ever present technology? Someone who "watches the drudge" doesn't really understand the intricacies of this. I have concerns about that. Sure he can hire good advisers but can he understand the real issues associated with the advice? I know seniors who learn the computer but I know from my experience that the older you are the slower you learn. Its a given. I also realize that there are many senators and congressmen Sen. McCain's age or older but they are only one voice out of many. A president has the unique perspective of being a single "decider" in his co-equal branch of the government. And a global economy require attitudinal changes that someone my mother's age can't understand. McCain's campaign is already so rife with problem about memory, confusion, and lack of understanding. Much more so than Obama's. Memory gaps are all part of the again process. This is such a big problem with him right now and it seems to be escalating. He's looking tired, pale and worn. And how many weekend events has he done since his nomination? very few. I'm concerned and I think its a legitimate concern. Besides the really bad self-effacing age jokes, what can McCain do to aleviate these kinds of concerns?

-Suz in KS

Something to keep in mind on the age issue: Obama would be older than Bill Clinton was in his first term if elected.

Hey Chuck,

You are the best political mind in news right now the best since Russert, you have been the most fair and on point analyst. MSNBC has been pretty fair towards Obama, Fox News we all know is not a real news organization CNN is not bad but MSNBC is the best by far. A great deal of that is you Chuck, Matthews, Morning Joe and Pat

I would like to speak to all Obama Nation right now, we should be civil in our discourse with commentators who are critical of Obama, and we must stop and speak out against hateful and rude emails towards those who criticize Obama like Mika, Joe, and Pat do on Morning Joe. These are human beings and we should be a little more mature and cordial.

On the David Gregory I think the RFTWH format does not suit him it does allow him any room to express his opinions or analyze a topic, he needs a format like Morning Joe meets MTP where he can question guests yet show off his personality or maybe a Hardball or the MSNBC version of the Anderson Cooper Show where he can interview guests, go on trips, show off his personality. Someone like Nora O'Donell, Kelly O'Donell or Contessa Brewer would be a great fit for RFTWH they are good personalities and being women and good looking at that they would add a femine touch to the male-dominated MSNBC lineup.

As for Veepstakes I think Kaine, Bayh would be great, but think about this potential Obama Adminstration Schwarzegger = Energy Czar, Biden= Secretary of State, Hagel= Secretary of Defense, Richardon= National Security Advisor, powell= CIA Director, Daschle= Chief of Staff, Nunn= F.B.I Director.

Chuck what do think about those potential cabinet appointments? or any clear front-runners for VP SLOT for Obama?

-Brandon-380713

I imagine all of those names will get bandied about if Obama's elected but also expect a few more Republicans in the mix as well... Maybe Lugar for Sec/State for instance.

Chuck,

What are your thoughts on the following?

My theory is that Sen. Obama fully intends to select Sen. Clinton as his running mate, and that the current widespread dismissal of her as a VP candidate is in fact precisely the perception that the Obama camp wishes to exist. Having created that perception, once Hillary is announced as the running mate, the pundits and everyone else will be astonished and amazed, and her supporters will be overjoyed and ready and anxious give time, money and votes in support of the ticket. Her selection makes perfect sense, notwithstanding any supposed negatives. The fact is that she has a built in and ready-to-go supporter base that perhaps not even Sen. Obama can match at this point. That fact, together with her universal name recognition among even the lowest of low-information voters, plus the implicit "experience comfort zone" that Bill will engender, would make the Democratic ticket virtually unbeatable.

-TXIndependent

Believe it or not, we love to get fooled in the media... it's more fun to be wrong sometimes if it's because you had the wool pulled over your eyes... so we'll see.

Chuck,
Does being accused of bias from both the left and the right make you feel like you have done your job?

-JustinL

It used to... but it does get tiresome... Who enjoys having their integrity questioned? That said, I simply attempt to simple self-examine our coverage and try to put myself in the shoes of the average voter and see if we're being fair... I think that's a better way than simply measuring it via comments and emails.

Chuck, has anyone ever mentioned that you look like the character Murray from Flight of the Conchords? -Chris-380404

a few times... I need to actually watch the show once... I have hesitated for fear of getting hooked on yet another HBO series.

Greetings Chuck,

I read above that you said your gut, based on historical and current data, points to Sen Obama losing....what are your thoughts on the Electoral Barometer, which if I am not mistaken, indicates Sen Obama and other Democrats sweeping the Republicans this fall?? I have read that it is extremely accurate and has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in 19 of the past 20 presidential elections. Do you give this much credit? Do you give the Rasmussen Reports polls in general much credit?

I also would like to say I think you are one of the most knowledgable, and honest political junkies on TV. I really enjoy your analysis and am inspired by you to jump in the game as well. What would your advise be for someone who wants to do what you do for a living, to start down that path? What particular degrees/experience would really help/distinguish you to land a job at MSNBC?

Finally, can you share any personal stories of your own about getting to where you are now?

Thank you and keep up the awesome job!

Intrigued Citizen

-Intrigued Citizen

Where did I say that my gut said Obama would lose... I think I said there were more scenarios that had Obama winning than McCain? Anyway, many indicators are pointing to Obama and a big Dem win... but there are legitimate scenarios which show McCain winning but Democrats will winning big on the House and Senate level.

As for my career; the best thing to happen to me was the Internet. I started working as a web-based journalist in '96 before a lot of other folks were doing it and it opened doors quickly. My advice to anyone is to not turn your nose up at the Internet.

I have a non-political question about Obama. Do you think he should commit the United States to a manned mission to Mars?

I have to qualify this a bit. A lot of folks say we don't know how to get there yet, but this isn't the case. JPL has had several 'DRM's' (mission plans, basically) in place for years.

With the very likely discovery of water on the Red Planet, do you think Obama should support this idea?

-Robert Blevins – AB of Seattle

Simply as a fan of the space program who remembers every single Shuttle launch and couldn't stop watching the HBO series, "From Here to the Moon," I wish our space program was something to aspire to again. Maybe we in the media romanticized the space program too much and eventually doomed it to failure but I do think having some tangible space goal could kick start our math and science programs.

Chuck can obama win indiana and if so what does he need to do there in order that state to flip? Can alaska be in play since Obama is putting capaign ads there?? Also which swing states do u believe will likely go towards obama??

Thanks again chuck.

Jorge

-jorge2589

I think Indiana is in play even in a close election; I think Alaska only comes into play if Obama wins in a landslide... As Alaska goes, so goes the landslide.

Last question.(okay, questions) Is your role at NBC similar to that of a Editor in Chief at a magazine? Do you craft the overall message, focusing on big picture, or are you more hands on with the actual shows?

-JustinL

A combination of the two... i try and help every show on every platform. But it's truly a team effort

OK, that's it for me this week... Luckily, there was nothing on the tube tonight... no compelling baseball game either, so I chatted it up. See you next week and until then, riddle me this: Was Higgins the butler on Magnum P.I. or not or was he the actual rich guy?

------ Original Post ------

I'm Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director. Please join me for another Q&A session here on Newsvine, on Wednesday, July 16 from 3:30-4:30 PM ET, where we'll be discussing U.S. Politics and the unfolding presidential election. Feel free to post your questions here in advance.

Also, due to the number of responses during my last Q&A, I'll likely only be able to answer the most popular submissions. So please remember to vote for your favorite questions by clicking the small arrow in each comment box.

As you can tell, Bill Simmons, I am not; but I will continue to over-participate in this chat until you all stop submitting questions. Meanwhile, your assignment this week, figure out who won the CA GOV race in the final episode of Benson.

For those of you visiting us here for the first time, please know that Newsvine is an interactive web site designed for members to participate in thoughtful discussions about news-related topics. Feel free to take a look at the Newsvine Code of Honor, it's a short list of standards that existing members hold themselves to here.